Who’s ready for another populist, anti-TSA firestorm?
Authorities blocked U.S. Sen. Rand Paul at the Nashville airport Monday after the Kentucky Republican refused a pat-down at a security checkpoint, his spokeswoman said.
Paul went through a scanner at the airport and set off an alarm, said his spokeswoman, Moira Bagley. He wanted to go through the body scan again instead of getting a pat-down, but officers of the Transportation Security Administration refused, Bagley said.
There’s already a dispute over what actually happened to Paul. According to his office, he was detained by security officials. According to the TSA, he was escorted to the airport’s exit after he refused to comply with the pat-down.
The TSA released the following statement about the incident:
“When an irregularity is found during the TSA screening process, it must be resolved prior to allowing a passenger to proceed to the secure area of the airport,” according to an official statement released by TSA. “Passengers who refuse to complete the screening process cannot be granted access to the secure area in order to ensure the safety of others traveling.”
This seems pretty unobjectionable, but it’s raised the usual libertarian criticisms of airport security. Since Paul is self-evidently not a terrorist, this has been seized on as another example of TSA arbitrariness.
But what exactly is the argument here? That Rand Paul shouldn’t have to go through the regular screening process? That U.S. senators shouldn’t have to go through the regular airport screening process? That nobody who isn’t a terrorist should have to go through the airport screening process?
You can reasonably make the case that U.S. senators shouldn’t have to follow the same airport rules as the general public. But if you want to argue that Paul’s detention is evidence the TSA procedures need to be overhauled for everyone, that’s ridiculous. Virtually nobody who goes through airport security is a terrorist. That’s how it works. The security measures are primarily designed to deter terrorists from trying to enter in the first place — and so far, that’s been pretty successful. So while the TSA’s request that Paul go through additional screening sounds impractical as everybody knows he’s not a threat, it’s hardly proof the system isn’t working.
Part of the problem is the inconsistency with which the screening is applied; I have seen plenty of people offered the opportunity to go through the scanner again instead of being pat down. Why wasn't it an option this time?
Not entirely tongue in cheek, one could argue that Rand Paul, as his father, does contribute to terrorists with his isolationist foreign policy. The foreign policy advocated by the Pauls would be the greatest possible victory for terrorists everywhere.
I thought one was innocent until proven guilty? it seems that now one is guilty until proven innocent, nI think we are quickly losing our constitutional rights and dignity that in order to board an airplane we must allow ourselves to be groped and fondled by TSA agents, whats next cavity searches with probing, there are those who want security but at what cost?
Paul had two choices after the alarm and he followed one. After setting off the scanner alarm he declined a pat down. He chose to be escorted out of the area because he was not allowed to board after setting off the scanner and decling a pat down. Paul later flew to DC after passing a scan without a problem. __He sounds like diva to me. _I am a long critic of TSA and admirer of both Pauls but not in this case._
Paul is unclear what he would have done differently. Would he have allowed one who set of an alarm board a plane? Did he consider waiting for a law enforcement escort 'detained'? If so then he says a US senator is above the law of airport security. That 'detain' clause is about jailing and preventing from doing his duty in the normall course of events, not at a security check. n
If Rand Paul was stopped for suspicion of drunk driving and the state patrol asked he step aside and take a breath test, would Paul yell he was detained and as as a US senator immune? Would he be entitled to drive off with no test or ticket for speeding or DUI? n nStrangely enough probably so would he have a case. But the drunk drive example is a public safety concern and not a normal course of events. Don't use the constitutional loop hole when safety is involved, Rand Paul. n n.
Constitution — Article I, Section 6: "They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."